[lkml]   [2005]   [Jan]   [13]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [PATCH] [request for inclusion] Realtime LSM
    On Fri, 2005-01-14 at 03:05 +0100, utz lehmann wrote:
    > On Thu, 2005-01-13 at 16:25 -0500, Lee Revell wrote:

    > > This all seems to imply that introducing an rlimit for MAX_RT_PRIO is an
    > > excellent solution. The RT watchdog thread could run as root, and the
    > > rlimit would be used to ensure than even nonroot users in the RT group
    > > could never preempt the watchdog thread.
    > Just an idea. What about throttling runaway RT tasks?
    > If the system spend more than 98% in RT tasks for 5s consider this as a
    > _fatal error_. Print an error message and throttle RT tasks by inserting
    > ticks where only SCHED_OTHER tasks allowed. For a limit of 98% this
    > means one SCHED_OTHER only tick all 50 ticks.
    > The limit and timeout should be configurable and of course it can be
    > disabled.

    This is just a hack. Realtime scheduling is pretty rigidly specified,
    and we satisfy that. Thus it is useful for systems that need to make
    use of it. The way SCHED_FIFO and SCHED_RR scheduling is specified is
    inherently insecure/incompatible with a multi user machine; I don't
    understand why people are getting heated with this debate. You literally
    can't run more than one realtime system on the same CPU(s) if they don't
    have a knowledge of one another.

    SCHED_FIFO and SCHED_RR are definitely privileged operations and you
    can't really change them without making them useless to legitimate
    users, I think.

    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 14:09    [W:0.022 / U:23.124 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site